[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 90 (Tuesday, June 18, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H6480-H6481]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, SPECIAL INTERESTS, NOT PUBLIC INTERESTS, DRIVE THE 
                    LEGISLATIVE AGENDA IN WASHINGTON

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan] is recognized for 5 minuites.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, when I came to the Congress 3 years ago, I 
brought a list of priorities: Balancing the budget, cleaning up the 
environment, and promoting economic development and small business 
opportunities. But after working on Capitol Hill for just a few months, 
I learned that more often than not, special interests, not public 
interests, drive the legislative agenda in Washington. That is why so 
much of the changes voters demanded, like cutting Government waste and 
curbing rising health care costs are so difficult to achieve.
  Under our grossly deficient campaign finance system, well-heeled 
lobbyists and PACs have greater influence over Washington's business 
than the folks back home. A perfect example is the 2-year debate about 
how to balance the budget. Congress could have passed a credible plan 
to balance the budget last year in the absence of special interests. 
Year after year, programs that have long outlived their usefulness are 
preserved in the budget. Everything from tax loopholes for energy and 
marketing subsidies are taboo when it comes to cutting Government 
spending, while education, employment and training programs for the 
working poor are on the chopping block.
  Even if we do get a balanced budget this year, Mr. Speaker, odds are 
that that balanced budget will contain costly tax breaks that benefit 
special interests and disproportionate cuts to the lower and middle 
class. Congress comes up against the special interest money barrier 
every time we try to take on the tobacco industry as well. Public 
decisions and public policies are often abstract, but this one could 
not be clearer.
  Every day 3,000 young people are enticed into forming a deadly habit 
before they are old enough to truly make impartial decisions about 
their health. Yet even when the issue is clear-cut, Congress has been 
unable to pass legislation or even try to eliminate or regulate 
teenagers' access to tobacco products.
  Last year, Common Cause released a report that illustrated the 
enormous amount of money the tobacco industry pours into political 
campaigns to stop antitobacco legislation from passing. According to 
the report, tobacco giants like Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds, U.S. 
Tobacco and the Tobacco Institute have donated millions of dollars to 
Members of Congress over the past 10 years. Without question, this 
report documents the way money in the form of campaign contributions 
influence decisions that are made in Washington.
  During the last Congress, I joined with a group of like-minded 
freshman Democrats to pass campaign finance and lobby reform 
legislation. It is no secret now that our efforts failed largely due to 
the efforts of special interests. Both bills failed to pass, and many 
of my dedicated freshman colleagues lost in their bids for reelection 
as a result. I learned then that passing real congressional reform 
means forging new alliances across party and ideological lines to fight 
the embraced establishment and the entrenched establishment in 
Washington. That is how we passed lobby reform and the gift ban 
legislation last year, and that is the only way Congress can reform its 
corrupting campaign finance system.
  This week the Senate will start debating the first bipartisan 
bicameral

[[Page H6481]]

campaign finance reform in over a decade. S. 1219, the McCain-Feingold 
regulation, has the support of a coalition of 30 grass-roots 
organizations and editorial board from all across America. Last year 
Linda Smith, Chris Shays, and I introduced the House version of this 
campaign finance reform bill. H.R. 2566, the Bipartisan Clean Congress 
Act, was the result of months and months of negotiations between groups 
of Democrats and Republicans. Both bills are a remarkable example of 
what can happen when Members put aside their partisan differences and 
sit down to the same table to try to make Congress more accountable.

  H.R. 2566 eliminates PACs, caps lobbyist donations, requires 60 
percent of campaign contributions to originate in a candidate's home 
State. It eliminates loopholes and large political party contributions 
and sets voluntary spending limits, offering candidates discounted 
broadcast time and large mailings if they sign a pledge not to spend 
any more than $600,000.
  If enacted, the Bipartisan Clean Congress Act will halt special 
interest influence in Washington and really clear the way for the truly 
representative democracy which our forefathers envisioned 200 years 
ago.
  Now, it is difficult to change a system that is so favorable to 
incumbents, given the fact incumbents have access to PAC and lobbyist 
contributions. They help us win reelection in the Congress over 90 
percent of the time. Incumbents receive 70 percent of their PAC 
contributions in each cycle. Seventy percent of all PAC contributions 
go to incumbents. Compare that with less than 12 percent for 
challengers; less than 12 percent.
  Mr. Speaker, the time for campaign finance reform is now. We have to 
act in this Congress while we have a President willing to sign this 
bill. Let us give President Clinton this bipartisan bill and pass it 
into law.

                          ____________________